Investigation, Prosecution, and Disposition

Overview

Few other types of crimes are the focus of as much attention and scrutiny
as sex offenses, particularly with respect to the prosecution and ultimate
disposition of these cases. Increasingly over the past several years—and
largely as a function of heightened media attention—the public, victims
and their families, and other key stakeholders are demanding increased accountability
measures for sex offenders as a means of promoting public safety. Included
among these expectations are longer sentences, harsher punishments, tighter
supervision restrictions and, perhaps to a lesser degree, rehabilitative
services for the individuals who commit these crimes.

Unfortunately, the handling of adult– and juvenile–perpetrated
sex offense cases is not always informed by current research and accurate
information, whether about victims, offenders, or effective management strategies.
Because misinformation, myths, and biases can impact the ways in which sex
offense cases progress through the system, specialized education is critical
for all stakeholders involved in offender management efforts to ensure that
policies and practices throughout the system are well–informed (English,
Pullen, Jones, & Krauth, 1996; Holmgren, 1999). This is particularly
salient during the early phases of the criminal justice process, during which
practitioners are responsible for addressing multiple objectives, including
the following:

Delivering supportive and other necessary services to victims of sex
offenses, beginning at the point of disclosure and continuing through subsequent
court proceedings;

Collecting critical forensic evidence, some of which is unique to crimes
of a sexual nature;

Ensuring due process for defendants;

Resolving cases swiftly, fairly, and effectively; and

Making informed disposition decisions that hold adult and juvenile sex
offenders accountable, facilitate successful outcomes for victims and offenders,
and promote community safety.

Of the multiple facets of a comprehensive and integrated approach to sex
offender management, the investigation, prosecution, and disposition components
are the most under–represented in the professional literature. As such,
practices vary considerably both within and across jurisdictions. This limits
the ability of the system to meet the aforementioned objectives and establish
a solid framework for initial and ongoing management efforts.

Therefore, as jurisdictions examine the ways in which these types of cases
proceed from the point of investigation and through the prosecution and disposition
phases, close attention must be paid to the degree to which well–informed
and consistent policies and practices are in place. This provides an important
opportunity to enhance the quality and integrity of the process overall.

Investigation

Because they are often the first to have contact with alleged victims and
offenders, law enforcement officers and child welfare personnel play a key
role in ensuring that quality investigations are conducted. Investigations
are most effective when professionals are guided by specialized knowledge,
sensitive to the needs and interests of victims, and committed to multidisciplinary
collaboration.

Specialized Training

Without question, investigating sex crimes poses unique challenges for law
enforcement and child welfare agencies (see, e.g., APRI, 2003; English et
al., 1996; Hazelwood & Burgess, 2001; Myers, et al., 2002; Turvey & Savino,
2004; Vieth, Bottoms, & Perona, 2006). Included among these challenges
are the dynamics of sexual victimization and the impact that it has on victims’ disclosures
and willingness to participate fully in the investigative process. In addition,
the physical evidence distinct to sex crimes and, in many instances, the
lack of corroborating evidence, create unique barriers to these investigations.
And when children are the alleged victims, developmental issues (e.g., age,
verbal abilities, memory, suggestibility) further complicate the investigative
process.

Professional biases and stereotypes about victims and offenders can also
influence the ways in which these cases are investigated. For example, research
indicates that there is a significant association between a variety of victim–related
factors and decisionmaking by law enforcement agencies (see, e.g., APRI,
2003; Myers et al., 2002; Simon, 2003). Specifically, familiar victim–offender
relationships in rape cases and delays in reporting by victims of rape and
other types of sexual abuse can lead to increased skepticism on the part
of investigators. When investigators question the credibility of a victim’s
report, the likelihood of a rigorous investigation is markedly reduced. Consequently,
charges may not be filed and cases may not be prosecuted fully, even when
the allegations are founded.

When juveniles are the focus of investigations, myths and misperceptions
can impact the ways in which law enforcement, child welfare, and juvenile
court personnel respond to allegations of sexual victimization. Indeed, for
many years, juvenile–perpetrated sex crimes were largely overlooked,
minimized, or dismissed because of widespread and uninformed sociocultural
and professional attitudes, including a “boys will be boys” mentality
and the belief that sexually problematic behaviors were simply a normal phase
out of which adolescents would grow (Bala & Schwartz, 1993; Heinz & Ryan,
1997; NAPN, 1993). Law enforcement and child welfare officials have since
begun to take allegations involving youthful offenders much more seriously.
But unfortunately, in some instances, non–sexually abusive youth are
now being referred for investigation and ultimately mislabeled as “dangerous
sex offenders.” This is, in part, a reflection of a limited understanding
on the part of stakeholders from law enforcement and child welfare officials
about sexual behaviors among adolescents, the difficulties these professionals
experience in differentiating nominative inappropriate sexual conduct among
youth, and a lack of knowledge about the differences between adults and juveniles
who engage in sexually abusive behavior (see, e.g., Becker & Hicks, 2003;
Chaffin, Letourneau, & Silovsky, 2002; Letourneau & Miner, 2005;
Zimring, 2004). In the absence of accurate, research–based information
about these youth, investigative personnel may be ill–equipped during
the investigation process and may either fail to file, or inappropriately
file, delinquency petitions in these cases.

Taken together, these and other challenges highlight the importance of specialized
information and training (see, e.g., English et al., 1996; NAPN, 1993). Included
among the targets for initial training and education for law enforcement
and child welfare investigators are the following:

Victimization trends, including the dynamics that impact the disclosure
process for victims;

Victims’ rights and the needs of victims and their families;

The heterogeneity of individuals who commit sex offenses, including the
key differences between sexually abusive adults and juveniles;

In addition, particularly for law enforcement agents, specialized training
about the proper procedures for collecting and preserving evidence is vital.
Among the key sources of evidence that are often specific to sex crimes cases
are DNA, clothing items, bedding, furniture (for trace evidence), and computer
files. In the absence of specialized training in this area, investigators
may overlook or mishandle evidence, which can ultimately compromise successful
prosecution efforts.

Investigators should also become familiar with the various sex offense–related
statutes within the jurisdiction (English et al., 1996). This awareness,
or lack thereof, can impact the extent to which law enforcement officials
and other investigators pursue evidence collection and inquiries during interviews
with alleged victims and perpetrators. It can also provide a lens through
which evidence, statements, and other details of the alleged offense are
viewed and ultimately interpreted. Along a similar vein, if investigators
understand the statutory provisions that define sex offenses and sexually–motivated
crimes, possess specialized knowledge about the dynamics of some sex crimes,
and use effective investigation techniques, they may be better able to recognize
crimes that initially appear non–sexual in nature but that may have
an underlying sexually–motivated component.

Victim–Centeredness

A key element of investigating cases involving sexual
victimization is the ongoing assurance of victim–centeredness throughout
the process.

A key element of investigating cases involving sexual victimization is the
ongoing assurance of victim–centeredness throughout the process. At
the point of disclosure or identification, a full range of resources must
be readily available in order to offer crisis intervention, support, education,
referrals, and advocacy to victims. Advocacy and support—without compromising
the truth–seeking process—is critical at this juncture, as victims
and their families may experience a variety of concerns and fears that may
impact their willingness or desire to participate in the investigative and
subsequent court process. Indeed, practitioners who play a role in these
investigations must understand and appreciate the potential influences that
may be operating, including the following (see, e.g., CSOM, 2006; OVC, 2000):

Feelings of shame, guilt, and self–blame;

Fears that they will not be believed, or may even be blamed by others;

Lack of support by family members;

The desire to keep the matter private;

Insensitivity by law enforcement, child welfare, or medical professionals;

Threats or harm by the abuser, or fears of retaliation;

Attachment to the abuser;

Fears about economic and other family hardships, particularly in intrafamilial
cases; and

Concerns about the system’s ability to protect them.

When the alleged perpetrator is a juvenile and the case involves a sibling
or other family member, investigators must also be sensitive to the potential
reactions of parents and other members of the family. Families can become
divided, either because some may believe the allegations while others do
not, or because they feel compelled to “take a side.” Child welfare
investigators must also be sensitive to the responses and feelings of family
members—and even victims—when the removal of the alleged perpetrator
from the home is deemed necessary. These can include anger, confusion, and
despair, including feeling torn because of perceived expectations that they
must “choose” one child over another. Extreme guilt may even
lead victims to recant the allegations, or they may be pressured by others
to do so.

In those cases where investigators and the courts determine that separation
of the alleged victim and offender is required, removal of the offender should
almost always be the first course of action. Understandably, removing the
victim can cause further trauma, and the victim may perceive that they are
responsible for the abuse or that they have engaged in wrongful behavior.
Only in rare circumstances, when it has been determined to be in the best
interest of the victim, should they be removed. Primary examples are when
the investigation reveals that the non–offending parent refuses to
acknowledge that abuse could have occurred, blames or harbors considerable
resentment toward the child, is unable or unwilling to ensure the alleged
abuser’s departure or continued absence, or has demonstrated a continued
pattern of failing to protect the child or other children from abuse.

Victim sensitivity is also critical during the forensic examination process
in order to prevent system–induced trauma. Indeed, researchers have
revealed that when victims present themselves to hospital emergency departments,
multiple factors can contribute to or exacerbate the trauma they have already
experienced (Ahrens, et al., 2000; Campbell, 1998; Campbell, et al., 1999).
These factors include, but are not limited, to the following:

Excessive delays for intervention or treatment;

A chaotic and impersonal environment that is not conducive to support,
comfort, and privacy;

Invasive forensic examination procedures performed mechanically and without
explanation about what the procedure will involve and why it is necessary;
and

Unanticipated costs associated with the forensic examination and other
medical procedures.

In response to the need for more victim–sensitive procedures, Sexual
Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) and Forensic Nurse Examiner (FNE) programs
have been established throughout the country (Ahrens et al., 2000; Campbell,
1998; Campbell et al., 1999; Ledray, 1999, 2004). These programs, which are
generally available at no cost to victims, assure that services are provided
in a safe and supportive environment by professionals who are specially trained
to understand victims’ needs, conduct forensic examinations, and provide
court testimony relative to the investigative process (Ahrens et al., 2000;
Ledray, 1999, 2004). Another key feature of these types of programs is a
single interview protocol—collaboratively designed by medical, law
enforcement, and legal personnel—thus eliminating the need for victims
to repeatedly describe their experience to multiple parties. Similarly, child
advocacy centers offer discreet, child–friendly environments in which
the forensic examinations and single interview protocols are available, thus
minimizing the potential to further traumatize the child (see, e.g., Finkel & Giardino,
2001; Myers et al., 2002). Furthermore, many child advocacy centers are equipped
to provide victims and their families with immediate supportive and counseling
services, education about the court process, and community referrals for
additional services.

The investment of time and resources in victim–sensitive investigative
processes yields significant dividends in both the short and long term, including
the following (Ahrens et al., 2000; APRI, 2003; Ledray, 2004; Myers et al.,
2002; Turvey & Savino, 2002):

Standardized and consistent protocols to guide and enhance the overall
investigation process;

Reliable forensic evidence collection;

Minimized duplication of efforts;

Efficient processing of cases;

Reduced waiting times for victims and families;

Increased linkages to victim advocacy and other community resources;

Decreased system–induced trauma to victims and families; and

Greater likelihood of effective prosecution.

Collaborative Partnerships and
Information–Sharing

Multiple agencies are involved with sex crimes investigations,
often with unique roles and responsibilities. However, they often share
a common goal—to ensure reliable and valid findings that will lead
to successful resolution of these cases.

Multiple agencies are involved with sex crimes investigations, often with
unique roles and responsibilities. However, they often share a common goal—to
ensure reliable and valid findings that will lead to successful resolution
of these cases. This is best accomplished through establishing multidisciplinary
collaborative teams, commonly known as sexual assault response teams. These
teams typically operate within the parameters of a formal protocol that guides
the multiple facets of the investigation process and promotes information–sharing
among law enforcement agents, child welfare personnel, victim advocates,
medical professionals, and court officials.

Another key mechanism for information–sharing, and one that is distinct
to sex crimes investigations, involves the coordination of local, statewide,
and national sex offender registries. As part of the registration process,
law enforcement and other officials collect identifying information (e.g.,
fingerprints, DNA samples) from convicted or adjudicated offenders; this
information is subsequently entered into databases that can be accessed by
law enforcement agents within and across jurisdictions. When accurate, up–to–date,
and readily accessible, the information in these registries can be useful
for linking known sex offenders to crimes that are currently under investigation
or are otherwise unsolved. (For additional information about sex offender
registries, see the Registration and Notification section of this protocol.)
Along similar lines, states have been encouraged to participate in the Federal
Bureau of Investigation’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a technology
system that can assist federal, state, and local crime laboratories in solving
crimes by comparing DNA found at crime scenes with DNA from convicted offenders.

Cross–Agency Data Analysis

Most agencies involved in the criminal/juvenile justice and social services
fields collect a wide range of statistical information that has salience
to their respective agencies (e.g., number of clients served per year, number
of arrests by offense type, number of releases, average length of stay).
When collected and reviewed across disciplines, and particularly when combined
with information from system–wide assessments, these types of data
can be instructive on multiple levels (e.g., better understanding what sex
offenders within a given jurisdiction “look like,” conducting
process and outcome evaluations, implementing quality assurance measures)
(see, e.g., CSOM, 2007).

With respect to the investigative component of a comprehensive approach
to sex offender management, law enforcement, child welfare, and other systems
will ideally have access to multiple data sources that can inform current
practices, including the following:

Number of sexual assault crisis intervention responses;

Investigations conducted by child welfare agencies (e.g., number and
nature of referrals, number of completed investigations);

Investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies (e.g., number and
nature of referrals, number of completed investigations);

Case–specific information, such as the location of the alleged
incident (e.g., home, outdoor/public location, school, childcare center)
and use of force or a weapon;

Number of forensic medical examinations conducted (including age and
gender of victim);

Number of child advocacy center encounters; and

Outcomes of investigations (e.g., number of cases cleared through arrest,
substantiated sexual abuse referrals, number of cases referred for prosecution,
number of unsolved cases).

Taken together, these and other data provide key stakeholders throughout
the jurisdiction with a common, data–driven understanding of the nature
and scope of reported sexual victimization within their jurisdiction and
the ways in which the system responds during this initial phase of the process.
These data can also be useful for understanding cross–agency workloads,
examining resource utilization, identifying potential staffing and other
resource needs, and establishing funding priorities. Ultimately, this can
inform the development of strategies that can increase the jurisdiction’s
overall ability to respond effectively to these cases.

In summary, the strength of investigative teams is dependent upon the individual
and collective expertise of the team members and their willingness to work
collaboratively to gather and analyze critical information. Through specialized
training, well–informed protocols, and collaborative partnerships,
the quality and quantity of information about each case can be increased
significantly, thus ensuring more comprehensive and reliable investigations.
In turn, these well–executed investigations lay the groundwork for
appropriate charging decisions, lead to more effective prosecutions, and
ultimately promote victim and community safety.